Chilling Effects reposts infringing links removed from Google. Why no consequences?
Earlier this week I sent Chilling Effects a DMCA takedown notice*, requesting that the site remove links that lead directly to a pirated stream of our film, And Then Came Lola. How did the pirate link make its way to Chilling Effects? Well, it’s not a new tale. In fact, I’ve repeatedly written about the fact that pirate links reported (and removed) by Google search are routinely reposted on Chilling Effects. Google even goes so far as to provide a direct link to the notice (and the infringing links) so as not to inconvenience its users.
In the short video clip below I document just how quickly–and easily–it was to navigate from Google to Chilling Effects to the illegal, embedded stream of our film. It took me a mere 10 seconds to complete the journey from Google-to Chilling Effects-to the illegal stream of our film.
I sent the original DMCA notice to Google on April 23, 2015 and two weeks later, the pirate links were reborn via a posted copy of DMCA notice sent to Google, courtesy of Chilling Effects. How Chilling Effects can get away with this behavior is beyond me, but I imagine the legal staff at the Berkman Center at Harvard, my alma mater, are careful to operate within the confines—if not the intent–of the DMCA’s “safe harbor”provision.
These safe harbor provisions could provide valuable protection to you as a web site operator. In order to take advantage of them, however, you must comply with three administrative requirements:
You must designate an agent, usually yourself though it may be someone else who agrees to do so, to receive notices of claimed copyright infringement. Your agent must provide up-to-date contact information so that copyright owners who believe their work is being infringed on your site can send complaints or take-down notices to him or her. To designate an agent, a procedural requirement for protection under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, you must file an interim designation with the U.S. Copyright Office and submit a $105 filing fee.
You must publish on your site your policy for addressing repeated infringing activity, specifically a statement that you terminate users or account holders who are repeat infringers. If you have no subscribers or account holders, your policy may state, “If we become aware that one of our users is a repeat copyright infringer, it is our policy to take reasonable steps within our power to terminate that user.” Including the policy statement in the web site’s terms of service or privacy agreements makes logical sense, though it may be published elsewhere on the site.
You must properly comply with a notice of claimed infringement when received, including
the expeditious removal of the material that is claimed to be infringing;
notification to the user or subscriber that the material has been removed;
notification to the copyright holder if proper counter-notice is provided by the user or subscriber; and
restoration of the removed material if proper counter-notice is provided, and the copyright holder does not file suit within 10 days.
Why doesn’t Chilling Effects make it easy to find email address to send takedown notices to?
Prior to sending my DMCA notice to the good people at Chilling Effects, I attempted to search the site for an email address to send the notice to. When I couldn’t find one even after searching Google using the terms–chilling effects “DMCA agent”— I resorted to sending my notice to the only email listed on the site’s about page, [email protected].*
Update 5-8-15:Today, after receiving no response to my original notice, I forwarded a copy to the Berkman Center For Internet & Society. Shortly thereafter I received an email with a link to Chilling Effects legal policies page (https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/legal). Of course, that was not the end of my journey. In order to get the actual email for CE’s acting DMCA agent I had to click another link (http://www.harvard.edu/reporting-copyright-infringements) and visit yet another website–this one a copyright infringement page hosted by Harvard University at Harvard.edu. Note that the Harvard page includes this verbiage:
In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), Pub. L. 105-304, Harvard has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring in the harvard.edu domain. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed, notify our designated agent specified below.
Hmmm, so I guess, technically, ChillingEffects.org is actually a Harvard.edu domain? Color me confused. Not exactly an efficient– nor transparent–way for Chilling Effects to inform people about its own DMCA takedown process.
Chilling Effects obfuscation of its own DMCA agent information is ironic given its mission is to make the takedown process transparent. Why, when it comes to its own site, do they hinder user’s ability to lawfully protect their copyrighted work from online pirates?
Chilling Effects is an independent 3rd party research project studying cease and desist letters concerning online content. We collect and analyze complaints about online activity, especially requests to remove content from online. Our goals are to educate the public, to facilitate research about the different kinds of complaints and requests for removal–both legitimate and questionable–that are being sent to Internet publishers and service providers, and to provide as much transparency as possible about the “ecology” of such notices, in terms of who is sending them and why, and to what effect.
Perhaps those who work at Chilling Effects (and the lawyers who advise them) believe that the database’s work falls outside that of the “service providers” as defined by the DMCA.
Until someone with deep pockets can take them to task, Chilling Effects is apparently quite willing to create its own ecology, above the law, where pirate links are reborn and disseminated. The Chilling Effects database may be used for legitimate research, but in its current form, it also gives users one of the most efficient piracy search engines around.
*Update: Today, Friday, May 8th I forwarded my DMCA notice to [email protected] which apparently serves as the DMCA agent for Chilling Effects.
“Balanced” copyright is really just code for killing it
The “ReCreate Coalition” is a jazzy, and kinda warm and fuzzy sounding name isn’t it? Yep, our favorite anti-artist groups are at it again, morphing into yet another anti-copyright potpourri whose mission is to demolish copyright in the name of protecting innovation or, as their press release glibly trumpets: “diverse coalition launchestopromote balanced copyright law, creativity and free speech.”
The internet has empowered everyone online to be a creator, opening up new audiences and markets for innovative people and businesses. We must work proactively to ensure that copyright laws keep up with our amazing technological advances, allow for creativity to flow to all corners of the world, and still respect the rights of content creators.
Let’s translate shall we? What’s she’s really saying is:
In order for big tech to continue to reap millions off creative content it doesn’t own it’s imperative that copyright law be neutered so that nothing will impede big tech’s ability to grow profits…
Notice the carefully crafted use of “innovative” as an adjective to describe both the people and the businesses she deigns to protect. Certainly copyright laws should “keep up with” technological advances, but not in the way I assume O’Conner means. She and her ilk hope to disembowel current copyright law in order to benefit tech’s bottom line, but if we are serious about transforming copyright law so that it remains relevant in the 21st century lawmakers should really begin by revisiting the woefully out-of-date 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to better protect the rights of content creators.
True copyright reform should begin with questioning why it’s OK that creators have been on the short end of the stick for nearly two decades? Why not revise “safe harbor” so that it protects the innovative musicians, filmmakers, authors and other creators who routinely have their work ripped off and monetized online by others? If organizers of this shiny new coalition genuinely believed in “respecting the rights of creators” they would work to improve copyright law so that creators are afforded more protection, rather than less.
O’Conner asserts that everyone online is now a creator, but let’s face it–not every creation is equivalent. Just because I can upload a mashup video to YouTube doesn’t mean that the content I created is worthy of protection that trumps the rights of the creator whose creation made my mashup possible.
Sure, there should be an allowance for fair use when appropriate–but do members of the ReCreate Coalition really envision a world where someone who works 3 minutes on something should always have the same (copy)rights as those who spent 3 years creating the original work? Just because people can upload content online doesn’t mean their rights are equal to, or exceed the rights of those who originally created it. Innovation, in whatever form that takes, cannot be a license to steal.
Take a look at the list of groups that united to form this new, anti-copyright effort:
American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy & Technology, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Democracy Fund, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, and R Street Institute.
If you really want to understand what the goals of this nascent coalition are,simply follow the money. The same cast of characters–led by Google–seems to appear repeatedly. Whether it be through slimy, backdoor means or endeavors like the ALA’s Google’s Policy Fellowship, there’s no denying the ever-present funding (and influence) bought by big brother tech. Could their coalition be any more incestuous, or disingenuous?
While lobbyists for a number of these groups are actively working to dismantle copyright protections–and in the process undermine the livelihoods of filmmakers, musicians, authors and more–it’s worth noting many of these anti-copyright organizations seem to pay their employees pretty well–much better than non-profits where my friends work.
Take a look the Center for Democracy & Technology’s 990 tax filing for 2013 and note all ten of their ten salaried executives made over $100,000 per year, with the CEO at the time, the position now held by O’Connor, earned a pretty nice salary of $286,731 (plus $17,204 in other compensation). It’s worth noting that CDT appears to get the much of its funding from tech interests.
According to the 990 filed by the (Google/Facebook backed) EFF, for the tax fiscal year 2013, everyone but the accountant earned compensation in excess of $100,000 + (and its ED more than 200K). Those on salary at Public Knowledge in 2012 were also part of the 100K plus club with its president/co-founder earning compensation of $207,150 plus an additional 17,544 listed as “other.”
While I don’t begrudge these folks earning a good living, I do find it troubling that much of their work is so ardently focused on denying others that same right. I also find it troubling these organizations are not the grass roots organizations they purport to be. While some of their work, particularly that of the ALA, is laudable, for the most part the groups that make up this “coalition” spend a much of their time lobbying in support of initiatives promoted by tech-based corporations–and against content creators who depend on robust copyright law to protect their livelihoods. This latest phony alliance appears to be just another effort to push big tech’s profit-driven agenda to weaken copyright in order to grow profits.
It’s also worth that at the same time the ReCreate Coalition announces its stepping into the ring, another astroturf entity, The Mic Coalition sprouted up alongside. In lock-step with the ReCreate mission, this Music Innovation Consumers coalition pretends to have the interests of creators in mind, but of course it’s simply more disingenuous posturing.
Note how they deftly employ the magic tech abracadabra word “innovation” in their moniker. After all, who can argue with magic that is innovation right? To appreciate the true extent of the baloney proffered by the MIC coalition, excellent posts on the subject can be found on The Trichordist blog. Here’s just a sampling:
Gee this wasn’t coordinated at all. Two new Astroturf (squared) organizations in two days (with possibly the same web designer?) The day after the announcement of the the new ReCreate Coalition, an AstroTurf organization composed almost exclusively of Google connected Astroturf organizations, some of the same companies plus The National Association of Broadcasters, I Heart Media (Clear Channel) Pandora and NPR have announced the creation of the MIC-Coalition in order to lobby AGAINST fair digital royalties to artists; AGAINST terrestrial royalty for performers, and to keep songwriters under the oppressive and unconstitutional DOJ consent decrees. Read the website it’s unbelievable.
The real joke is on anyone, in Washington D.C. or elsewhere, who takes these groups seriously. I mean, if you’re a fan of Fringe you know that shape-shifters never had good intentions. My guess is the same could be said for these shiny new anti-copyright coalitions too. Apparently there’s a plentiful supply of b.s. to fertilize an endless supply of Astroturf in Washington D.C.
*Note, the above embedded video from the Fox series “Fringe” has been uploaded to YouTube and monetized by WBTV.
Facebook doesn’t give a damn whose ad goes where, so long as it means more cash in its pocket
If ever you needed more evidence to show just how irresponsible problem online advertising has become–or how totally tone deaf and blind Silicon Valley is-look no further than Facebook. Yet again, a Silicon Valley king is caught red-handed–yet again–profiting from online movie piracy.
Take a look below at the Facebook page for a notorious pirate site, Solarmovie. Not only does Solarmovie–with its 15,000+ likes–get to openly share hundreds of links to pirated movies, but Facebook–in an absurdly ironic twist–plops a paid advertisement promoting the MPAA website The Credits right alongside.
The Credits was a website designed to “to highlight the creative work that goes into making film and television,” but I can’t imagine that promotional (or educational) partnerships with online pirates was part of the plan. I understand that keywords are part of product placement, but this situation takes the cake for absurdity.
Of course in an ideal world the would-be pirates would notice the MPAA ad, visit The Credits website, and be transformed by reading the stories of all those who work behind-the-scenes to create the movies we love….but we don’t live an ideal world and the people visiting this FB page are there for one purpose, to find links to stolen movies. How exactly will the advertising “team” at Facebook explain why Hollywood’s ad dollars seem to be supporting the very pirates laying waste to its worker bees?
Of course Facebook, like its Silicon Valley brethren, cares little for the livelihoods of those working outside its realm and so continue to blithely pile up profits, redefining theft as innovation.
Facebook page promoting pirate website provides direct links to full copies of pirated movies
The other unfortunate fact is that there’s no way for me to report this page and get it removed from Facebook for its blatant illegal activity. Sure, I can report the link it posted to an illegal stream of my own movie, but ultimately doesn’t give a damn about me, or any other creator just so long as that cash keeps on a coming…
When searching for this film’s official website Google search instead lists a notorious pirate site at #1. It links to a full, illegal stream of the movie.
Google’s promise to fight piracy on its search engine is pure baloney
Click the #1 result and immediately you’ll find a full stream of our film
I was updating my film’s website earlier this week and so randomly went to Google to see where it would show up in search results. I figured that, given it’s the official website for the film, it would be at or near the top of the results. Boy was I wrong…When I used in the search terms And Then Came Lola website the first result was a pirate site offering pirated streams of the film with a single click. In fact, the actual website for our film was nowhere to be found. Instead the first page of results included several sites that featured pirated streams of our film.
Yeah Google, you’re surely doing everything you can to fight online piracy aren’t you?
Google’s convoluted web takedown DMCA form requires 8 steps
Google moves pirate links to a safe haven on the Chilling Effects database
I guess it’s time to visit that handy dandy DMCA online takedown form that Google–so graciously–makes creators whose work is stolen use. Of course, in order to get to the DMCA page, one must click through 7 pages of crap, then login to Google, before–at last– filling out a tedious online form, It would, of course, be much more efficient to send an email (since I already have DMCA template set up) but let’s face it, Google has NO desire (nor incentive) to make the process an easy one.
We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily
At the bottom of the first pages of search results Google offers users these suggestions for finding (pirated) copies of the film online
Google search results not only put a pirate result in first place, but at the bottom of the page offer these handy suggested search phrases that also offer ways find illegal streams or downloads of my film.
BTW the pirate site solarmovie (and its ever-changing cornucopia of domain suffixes) that pops up #1 IS a notorious pirate host, impervious to any direct DMCA requests. It’s been reported thousands of times to Google….Why does it still end up as a #1 result??? If this is punishing pirate sites one can only wonder what praising them would look like?
Google forces me to acknowledge that they will send my DMCA to Chilling Effects so that the pirate link will live in despite my efforts
Google’s search DMCA takedown process is a joke
Of course, even after I go to ALL the trouble of requesting that Google remove the links it won’t disappear. In a nifty sleight of hand the Google team will simply move it to Chilling Effects so that users can still easily find the pirated stream(s) online. This entire DMCA takedown scheme is a fraud makes a mockery of the DMCA and destroys creators’ ability to protect their work from online theft. Recently the USPTO organized a working group comprised creators and service providers to address inefficiencies in the DMCA takedown process. This past Tuesday the group released its findings in a document, “DMCA Notice-and-Takedown Processes”. While it could be considered progress that the various parties are talking, there’s still plenty of evidence that the DMCA is badly the broken and due for a major overhaul.
Here’s a sneak peek of Part II of this (never-ending) story illustrating how Google’s search suggestions, mentioned above, also point directly to stolen (pirated) copies of my movie.
While Torrent Freak laments the fact that Google has already processed more than 100 million DMCA takedown notices this year, don’t shed any tears for the company. The massive number of takedowns is simply a sign that the internet giant’s nefarious business model (dependent on content theft) continues to chug merrily along. Per Torrent Freak:
A few days ago Google received its 100 millionth takedown request of 2015. The counter is currently at 103,218,572, which means yet another record. Last year it took a month longer to reach the same milestone.
If the numbers go up at the same rate throughout the year, Google will process half a billion allegedly infringing links during 2015.
In looking at these figures it’s important to remember that the vast majority of these takedowns are automated so it’s not as if thousands of Google worker bees are laboriously checking and removing infringing content from Google hosted sites. Operating takedown services (via online DMCA templates, content ID, and “trusted submitter” programs) is simply the cost of running a business that routinely allows (and encourages) users to upload and monetize infringing movies and music.
One should also remember that Google doesn’t really remove pirate links from its search engine, it just re-links to its partner, the Chilling Effects database so that users can still easily find the pirated movies, music, books, etc.
YouTube turns to licensing content to bolster its business model against increasing competition
Takedowns aside, it’s worth noting that Google’s YouTube nefarious business model is showing signs of decay. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that YouTube failed (again) to actually make a profit for Google despite revenues that grew by more than a billion dollars from 2103 to 2014 (3 billion to 4).
Google/YouTube is under increasing threat from other social media companies that promise content creators more favorable revenue deals for licensed content. According to a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal by by Shalini Ramachandran and Mike Shields:
Technology companies including Facebook Inc., Snapchat and streaming-startup Vessel are promising large TV-channel owners better terms for their video programming than Google Inc.’s YouTube, hoping to capitalize on mounting frustration with the Web giant in the entertainment industry.
The challengers to YouTube have been in talks with programming suppliers such asViacom Inc.,Time Warner Inc.,Comcast Corp.’s NBCUniversal and 21st Century Fox.They are all promising more generous revenue-sharing deals than YouTube, which lets content creators keep 55% of ad revenue, people familiar with the discussions say.
It’s a sweet irony that in order for Google/YouTube to remain at the top of its game its innovators have to turn to the very thing the company has spent the past ten years ignoring–licensing creative content. According to Variety, feeling the heat from competitors, Google has been forced to pony up to produce original programs in order to compete:
YouTube, too, is plowing bucks back into its most popular talent — a bid to keep its top creators from jumping to Vessel, Vimeo or others. With the YouTube Originals initiative, the Google subsidiary is paying its biggest stars to produce family and comedy programming, whether scripted or unscripted. That content is slated to debut in exclusive windows by the end of 2015.
Note the emphasis on “exclusive.” Of course, in order for (licensed) content to remain exclusive the sharing of unauthorized copies, i.e. piracy, will have to be squelched, otherwise the content quickly becomes non-exclusive, right?
How many DMCA notices Google will be sending to others when its own “original” content gets pirated?
One has to wonder how many new employees will Google have to hire to protect its “exclusive” content from online thieves? Will the anti-copyright apologists at Google ever eat crow and acknowledge that protecting creators’ work from online theft is important to sustaining one’s bottom line? If Google wants to succeed as a producer of content it’s likely that it will be sending a few DMCA notices of its own.
Meanwhile the DMCA safe harbor provision is out of date and due for a major overhaul
No matter how Google/YouTube’s business evolves moving forward, news of 100 million takedowns should serve as a (further) wakeup call for lawmakers to revisit the worn out “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA. Safe harbor was intended to protect online innovation, but instead has become a legal loophole routinely exploited by companies like Google to game the system at the expense of creators.
…this oft-abused language has served to shelter digital thieves at the expense of rights holders. “Safe Harbor” has enabled the growth of a criminal cancer and it’s a cancer–that as of now–cannot be beaten, only kept (marginally) at bay.
Where else, aside from the internet, is it OK to build a business around theft? If anything Google’s 100 million takedowns is a stark sign that its failed to effectively safeguard the rights of content creators.
While most creators have better things to do (like making more music or films), unless they act, Google and its partners in crime are free to monetize the stolen content. Basically it’s fill up the piggy bank until someone complains.
So, don’t feel sorry for Google’s 100 million takedowns–feel sorry for all those who continue to be ripped off by its innovative business model. As Google begins to view its business from the other side of the creative fence perhaps it will develop some innovations to better protect rightsholders. That would be a true, and welcome, innovation.
YouTube, its users, and shady certified “aggregators,” partner together to make money off pirated TV shows, movies & music
YouTube’s life-blood is advertising and by now it’s become pretty clear that Google doesn’t give a hoot about what videos it slaps ads onto. After all, why should vetting content BEFORE putting advertising on it get in the way of company profits right?
Of course Google continues to publicly deflect criticism of its business practices by repeating the tired mantra that anything goes in the name of innovation. Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s CEO penned a panegyricfor Google’s thinkwithGooglenewsletter, The Eight Pillars of Innovation,in which she waxed on about Google “striving for continual innovation, but not perfection.” She also makes this observation about Google’s mission:
Google’s mission is to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’ We use this simple statement to guide all of our decisions.
Sounds nice, but a more honest (and accurate) observation about what really guides (all) their decisions would read:
Google’s mission is to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful and profitable for us.
Sure, Google is great at making stuff more universally accessible and useful, but its success comes with a heavy price tag….and Google isn’t the one paying. All these platitudes about innovation–and serving the common good–provide cover for what drives Google–the almighty dollar. The ongoing search for innovative income has given rise to a company all that too often operates in a shady, often illegal sphere, dancing delicately along the edge to create a dubious morality built amid prevarication and platitudes.
In Google’s world, tainted profits acquired through illegal acts are OK as long as one doesn’t get caught red handed. It’s all just innovation right?
A glaring example Google’s innovative profiteering was on display when news broke that YouTube slapped beer advertisements on ISIS recruiting videos uploaded onto the site. Outrageous yes–but it’s only one particularly jarring reminder that Google has a corporate habit of placing profits above all else. Remember too, that not only was Google placing ads on ISIS videos, but by doing so was putting money into the pockets of terrorist and its own coffers.
Dive deeper into the cesspool that is YouTube, moving past the beer advertisements on ISIS recruiting videos and you’ll witness an entrenched, well-oiled (and oily) business model that enables Google to rake in millions, perhaps billions, by creating partnerships with cash-seeking YouTube users and shady middlemen who routinely monetize content they don’t own.
Who are these YouTube “certified”aggregators who are approved to work with Google who pave the way for users who knowingly make money off infringing content?
Why is it OK for YouTube to earn money off stolen goods?
Why don’t advertisers know (or care) where their ads are placed?
Let’s take a look at how this works. Let’s say I want to make some money by putting ads on YouTube videos. It doesn’t matter whether I own actually own them….what’s required is a way to get put my uploaded video onto YouTube, put ads on it and get paid based on the number of views it attracts.
How do I do this? I could try to get approved as an individual, but the easier way, if the pirate uploads I’ve checked our are any indication, is to partner with an aggregator. These entities are YouTube approved and give users an easy way to upload infringing content and get paid for it.
Sign up with them, upload a popular (pirated) TV show or movie via your aggregator account and ta-da!– you’re on your way to earning some easy money. Of course the aggregator will take a slice–as will YouTube–but hey, it’s free money right? Zero risk, and some reward–what could be better?
As is typical for YouTube, there don’t seem to be any safeguards to make sure these “certified” partners are on the up and up. After all YouTube isn’t so why would the company ask partners to behave better? As long as these partnerships bring in profits it’s best to look the other way right?
What it means to be YouTube Certified
YouTube Certified exists across several specific subject areas called “certification tracks.”
An individual may become YouTube Certified by successfully completing an in-depth training program and passing a final exam to demonstrate expertise.
A company may become YouTube Certified if a minimum of 3 employees have attended the training program and passed the exam. Company certification is valid for 12 months from date of issue. See below for a list of current YouTube Certified companies.
Note: YouTube does not make any promises or representations about the performance or quality of any YouTube Certified individual or company. YouTube does not guarantee you will get any specific results from working with YouTube Certified individuals or companies. It is always important to evaluate the companies you may work with and decide for yourself what makes the most sense for your business.
Hmmm, I wonder if that special “in-depth” YouTube training includes any mention of copyright law and/or ethical business practices? Doubt it… Ironic too that YouTube doesn’t do a better job “evaluating” these companies once they’ve been certified.
It seems that episodes of the Netflix hit starring Taylor Schilling, Orange is the New Black, is a popular show to upload and monetize. Below are four different episode uploads and FOUR different owners who claim worldwide rights.
Looks like Orange is the New Black has lots of different “owners” making money off episodes uploaded to YouTube.
Unfortunately this example is not the exception on YouTube, it’s the rule.
These YouTube approved aggregators pretend to have standards. Music Nations, a “certified” YouTube partner that has claimed one of Orange is the New Black episodes shown above, has an online application includes this disclaimer: Also please tick this box to confirm that you understand that uploading copyright material will cause your partnership to be cancelled. Of course they don’t vet the actual uploads…it’s only if you get caught. Meanwhile, uploaders get 70% of the revenue received from YouTube while Music Nations gets 30%. Of course in this case Netflix would receive ZERO.
Of course paying lip service to copyright doesn’t mean anything is actually done ahead of time to vet ownership or enforce compliance. In the graphic below is an example where a different Music Nationsclient,utmun dossa, has also uploaded and monetized multipleOITNB episodes (an ad for Secret adorns this playback, Pampers another). They’ve been online for more than a month. Google/YouTube makes money, Music Nations makes money and the user makes money but the rights holder gets nothing. For Google, this is innovation…
When I used the online customer “chat” at Music Nations to ask whether they required uploaders to prove ownership the agent I was chatting with didn’t know responding, “I don’t know if that is part of the process before a channel gets accepted but there is a team that reviews the application before they get accepted.” Seems like a pretty basic question, but there’s a reason customer support doesn’t have an answer.
Music Nations isn’t the only aggregator I’ve run across that seems to monetize stolen goods. Another “certified” YouTube partner is the Russia-based QuizGroup. I wrote extensively about their enterprise in my earlier blog post. They’ve also acted as the intermediary for monetized pirate uploads of Orange is the New Black, claiming worldwide rights. Note that all these uploaded episodes are altered (via letterbox or smaller frame size) in order to bypass any safeguards Netflix may have in place via Content ID.
If these were legit content claims, why would Netflix use multiple aggregators?
Another question worth asking is why do these aggregators stay on YouTube’s approved partner list?
QuizGroup remains on YouTube’s list of certified aggregators despite monetizing pirated content
One has to imagine, given the relative ease with which I discovered these examples, that both aggregators have had clients reported (repeatedly) for copyright violations. Why are they still allowed to do business YouTube? The answer is simple–because YouTube, and parent company Google, make millions. Go ahead FTC, look the other way and ignore Google’s bad business practices. Perhaps the Europeans will do the work you should be doing.
Part II-YouTube’s dirty money game continued, coming soon…
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
Earlier this week I sent Chilling Effects a DMCA takedown notice*, requesting that the site remove links that lead directly to a pirated stream of our film, And Then Came Lola. How did the pirate link make its way to Chilling Effects? Well, it’s not a new tale. In fact, I’ve repeatedly written about the fact that pirate links reported (and removed) by Google search are routinely reposted on Chilling Effects. Google even goes so far as to provide a direct link to the notice (and the infringing links) so as not to inconvenience its users.
h the site for an email address to send the notice to. When I couldn’t find one even after searching Google using the terms–chilling effects “DMCA agent”— I resorted to sending my notice to the only email listed on the site’s about page, [email protected].*
Until someone with deep pockets can take them to task, Chilling Effects is apparently quite willing to create its own ecology, above the law, where pirate links are reborn and disseminated. The Chilling Effects database may be used for legitimate research, but in its current form, it also gives users one of the most efficient piracy search engines around.
